International Political Economy of Labour and Gramsci’s methodology of the subaltern
| Author | Jon Las Heras |
| Published date | 01 February 2019 |
| Date | 01 February 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118785986 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118785986
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2019, Vol. 21(1) 226 –244
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369148118785986
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
International Political
Economy of Labour and
Gramsci’s methodology of
the subaltern
Jon Las Heras
Abstract
Gramscian International Political Economy scholarship has predominantly focused on studying
capital’s power to subsume labour under different hegemonic projects. Various Autonomist
Marxists have recently sought to fill such gap by proposing a disruption-oriented International
Political Economy. However, the article argues that it mirrors domination-oriented International
Political Economy approaches for overemphasising labour’s disruptive potentiality and for paying
little attention to the limitations that labour faces in its own empowerment. To escape from
the unilateralism of these two mutually exclusive perspectives, the article reviews Gramsci’s
‘Methodology of the Subaltern’ in order to propose a Gramscian or strategic International Political
Economy of Labour. Hence, the article shows that it is possible for International Political Economy
scholars to study uneven capitalist development as the result of the agency of (dis)organised
labour as well as to account better for the emancipatory potentiality of working-class strategies
in specific contexts.
Keywords
Antonio Gramsci, International Political Economy of Labour, methodology of the subaltern,
working-class formation
Introduction
Critical and neo-Gramscian International Political Economy approaches have given
labour a secondary role in the transformation of early 21st-century capitalism. For exam-
ple, Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC) formation has been explained to be intrinsically
related to both the expansion of capitalism in space, that is, the globalisation process, and
the overwhelming power of the state in implementing capital’s neoliberal hegemonic
project across Western and developing countries before (Apeldoorn et al., 2008; Bieler
and Morton, 2003; Cafruny and Ryner, 2007; Robinson, 2004) and after the 2008 finan-
cial crisis (Bieler and Morton, 2013; Bruff, 2014; Ryner and Cafruny, 2017). Such a
historical process has been uneven and has resulted in the formation of different TCC
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Corresponding author:
Jon Las Heras, University of Manchester, Arthur Lewis Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Email: jonlasheras@linuxmail.org; jon.lasheras@manchester.ac.uk
785986BPI0010.1177/1369148118785986The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsLas Heras
research-article2018
Original Article
Las Heras 227
fractions that have vested interests from, for example, their location in the expanded ‘cir-
cuit of capital’ (van der Pijl, 1998), as a result of their function in producing capitalist
hegemony (Sklair and Struna, 2013), or in their capacity to incorporate new geographies
and labour markets into the overall accumulation process (Shields, 2012; Yurchenko,
2012; for a review, see Harris, 2014; Jessop and Sum, 2017; Overbeek, 2000). In Europe,
it was possible through the entrenchment of both industrial and financial interests in
European structures of governance, and the incapacity of social-democratic governments
and European trade unions to pose any effective challenge (Becker et al., 2015; Ryner and
Cafruny, 2017; van der Pijl et al., 2011).
In contrast to these ‘top-down’ approaches to class formation, this article argues that a
more complex and dynamic theory of working-class formation is both necessary and pos-
sible, and that Gramsci’s methodology of the subaltern can be a useful starting point for
the development of a Labour-oriented International Political Economy (IPE), that is, to
strategically account for the limits and possibilities of working-class struggles. Recently,
various Autonomist Marxists have sought to counterbalance ‘top-down’ accounts by pro-
posing a ‘disruption-oriented’ IPE (Bailey et al., 2017; Huke et al., 2015). However, in
solely focusing on the subversive agency of the working class, they have also obviated
that (alienated) labour is crucial too in the reproduction of capitalism and its governance
institutions (Las Heras, 2018a, 2018c). Instead, a theory that is capable of addressing both
the limits and potentialities of working-class struggles in different contexts is much in
need, since it is only so that we can understand and account for both the relative success
and failure of specific working-class strategies. The aim of the article is thus threefold: (1)
to outline the drawbacks of one-sided theories in Critical and neo-Gramscian IPE, (2) to
provide a sympathetic critique of recent ‘disruption-oriented’ IPE approaches and (3) to
outline an analytical framework that may serve as a foundation for a Gramscian or strate-
gic International Political Economy of Labour (IPEL).
To do so, I will first review succinctly the critique of Autonomous Marxists and
IPEL scholars to ‘top-down’ approaches to class formation and capitalist development.
I will then go on to review recent contributions defending a ‘disruption-oriented’ IPE
which emphasise workers’ obstinate, disruptive and creative role in challenging capi-
tal’s domination. Nevertheless, in order to escape from the one-sidedness that simpli-
fies labour’s power, I will review Gramsci’s ‘methodology of the subaltern’. This
perspective will be presented as a ‘vantage point’ to understand uneven capitalist
development from the holistic perspective of the working class, that is, to produce an
IPEL that gives credence to workers’ contradictory role in the reproduction and trans-
formation of capitalism. Finally, I will articulate Gramsci’s framework with more
recent IPE and Industrial Relations (IR) contributions to formulate a strategic theory
of working-class formation, namely, a strategic IPEL. Three main strategic dimen-
sions of working-class power will be outlined: economic, political and ideological.
These are derived from a Gramscian approach to the ‘integral economy’, and which
are subdivided into various forms of tactical agency or immediate working-class
power that may become more useful to determine specific forms of class struggle. The
pursue of class strategies and production of class power are both relative and complex,
and thus, the importance of contextualisation when accurately accounting for the
structural position and the emancipatory potentiality of overlapping and often contra-
dictory processes of working-class formation. Rather than a definite-ideal closed box,
the strategic framework that will be outlined below must be understood and appre-
hended as an open process in which (1) new forms of class action transform existing
To continue reading
Request your trial